# A Pitting of the good Christians of the American Family Association **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 1, 2014, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578 "2014-08-01T15:36:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/41 "2014-08-02T05:02:25Z")
These are two entirely different things. One is relevant, one is not. > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Can you tell me they aren’t using their position to take pot-shots at the President and attempting to influence legislation, in clear violation of a straigtforward reading of the IRS definition of a 501(c)(3)? This is relevant. If you want to argue that tax-exempt organizations shouldn’t be influencing legislation, that’s very logical. However, _ **that would also apply to tax-exempt organizations who try to support amnesty legislation for illegals, as well. It goes both ways.** _ > [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The point is, one group is a legitimate target of Christian charity, while another group, self-professed providers of Christian charity (so that they can get their tax exemption), aren’t following through, but instead doing the exact opposite of their stated mission. Whether an organization truly adheres to its religious doctrine or not should be irrelevant to tax-exempt status. Should an Islamic tax-exempt organization be stripped of its tax-exempt status because its leaders and followers eat pork? ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/42 "2014-08-02T05:49:28Z")
Some _damn fine_ coding in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/43 "2014-08-02T06:19:37Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I can’t tell for sure because the link just goes to a general page, not a specific page with this story in it. But reading the link seems to tell me this is not about the current crisis of children crossing the border (it speaks of 5-6M illegal immigrants taking jobs). Rather, it’s about adult illegal aliens in the US. The objection seems to be about not securing the border, which I think even a proper Christian can expect the government to do. > > Further, once again we seem to have a poster who is confusing what an individual Christian should do with what a Christian should expect its government to do. In this case, the OP is upset that the group wants the government NOT to do something the individuals perhaps should be doing. But what if this same group had been lobbying FOR the government to declare the country to be ruled by Christian principles? Then the OP would be pitting them for doing something that, ostensibly, is in line with their Christian beliefs. > > So which is it? Or does it depend on whether the action is in line with what you want the government to do? Bad when Christian groups oppose “X action which is nominally Christian” but also bad when Christian groups favor “Y action which is nominally Christian”? It all depends on whether you, yourself, support X or Y. Excellent post. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/44 "2014-08-02T06:38:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Nope. I, as an individual, will give you the shirt off my back, but I will not force my neighbor to give the shirt off his back. That is my neighbor’s decision to make. OK, then, all the AFA has to do is issue a similar unambiguous renunciation of intent to shape government policy to their religious preferences, and the matter can then be allowed to drop. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/45 "2014-08-02T10:32:24Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Further, once again we seem to have a poster who is confusing what an individual Christian should do with what a Christian should expect its government to do. In this case, the OP is upset that the group wants the government NOT to do something the individuals perhaps should be doing. But what if this same group had been lobbying FOR the government to declare the country to be ruled by Christian principles? Then the OP would be pitting them for doing something that, ostensibly, is in line with their Christian beliefs. What OP did you read? What do you think the OP wants the government to do that AFA does not want the government to do? And how is there an individual vs. government issue here? If the government kicks immigrants out, how am I as an individual Christian supposed to welcome them? There’s no way for an individual to pick up the slack in this situation. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/46 "2014-08-02T16:58:03Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I can’t tell for sure because the link just goes to a general page, not a specific page with this story in it. But reading the link seems to tell me this is not about the current crisis of children crossing the border (it speaks of 5-6M illegal immigrants taking jobs). Rather, it’s about adult illegal aliens in the US. The objection seems to be about not securing the border, which I think even a proper Christian can expect the government to do. Just one problem here that I noticed, since we are talking about what one would expect a Christian to behave I have to say that what this group and what many Republicans are spinning this does qualify as them becoming a “false witness against thy neighbours”. > **[New Efforts To Address The Child Migrant Crisis](https://dianerehm.org/shows/2014-07-28/new-efforts-address-child-migrant-crisis/transcript)** > > An update on efforts to address the child migrant crisis, from competing plans from the Senate Democrats and House Republicans to the latest proposals from the White House. > [@](#): > > ROSENBLUM > 10:36:08 > Yeah, I think that’s right. I mean, the electoral map that we’re concerned about for the midterm race is very different then the 2016 national race. So the importance of Latinos as sort of swing voters is going to play out very differently and going to be much more important in 2016. But the other thing that I think reinforces the point you just made is how much this crisis is viewed as sort of a border security, illegal immigration problem rather than a humanitarian crisis, you know, involving children. > > ROSENBLUM > 10:36:38 > And, I mean, over and over again we hear about this as a border crisis but there’s actually not really a border crisis. There’s no – we’re not seeing kids crossing the border and evading apprehension. What we’re seeing is that there’s a bit of a crisis in our immigration court system for processing and for, you know, making these humanitarian determinations. That backlog is a real problem but there’s no border crisis. > > PAGE > 10:37:00 > Laura. > > MECKLER > 10:37:00 > That’s true. That’s very true. Kids are literally turning themselves in. They’re crossing the border and turning themselves into agents. So I’m not really sure what exactly the problem is with the border. And that was Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal and Marc Rosenblum of the Migration Policy Institute. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2014, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/47 "2014-08-02T17:41:17Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I don’t have to resort to the substantial part business, the bullshit gaming is obvious. > > We’ve got a clear example of the AFA committing fraud against the IRS by claiming certain religious convictions in order to receive the benefit of tax-exempt status… As I think I mentioned above, their tax-exempt status is not based on a religious conviction. > [@](#): > > Surely you know the definition of 501(c)(3)- it is for charitable organizations. If you read that definition together with the self-professed values of the AFA, can you look me in the eye and tell me they are being either charitable or Christian? Let’s hold off on “Christian,” for a moment, since they don’t have to be Christian or religious at all to be a 501(c)(3). They must be neither organized or operated for the benefit of private financial interests, and no part of their net earnings may be distributed as profit. Exempt purposes include “religious,” to be sure, but also: charitable, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. “Charitable:” certainly I can say they are being charitable. Their last [IRS Form 990](http://www.afa.net/uploadedFiles/Who_Is_AFA/form990_2012.pdf) clearly establishes that they meet the definition of charitable. > [@](#): > > Can you tell me they aren’t using their position to take pot-shots at the President and attempting to influence legislation, in clear violation of a straigtforward reading of the IRS definition of a 501(c)(3)? I don’t doubt you can find a way, but I’ll be darned if I can predict what it will be. There is no rule, IRS or otherwise, against a 501(c)(3) organization taking “pot-shots” at the President. And there is no rule that prohibits a 501(c)(3) organization from trying to influence legislation…as long as a substantial part of their activities is not trying to influence legislation. You earlier laughed off any need on your part to understand the “substantial activity” test created by Treas. Reg. § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(ii). Here, however, you show exactly why you need to understand it. A 501(c)(3) is allowed, under the law, to take pot shots at the President. If you believe this is untrue, then you don’t understand the statute and caselaw that applies it. You might peruse 1955’s Seasongood v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 227 F. 2d 907, (6th Cir.) for an illustration: > [@](#): > > It seems clear, therefore, in the light of the amended section, that the term “exclusively” is given a connotation differing from the ordinary meaning of that term, as originally used, and activities which are minor, and not substantial, do not disqualify charitable or educational corporations from the benefits of the exemption nor do they disqualify individual contributors to such corporations from deducting them in their income tax returns. The courts have so held. They have also applied the principle, that the section being remedial must be liberally construed. > . > . > . > Seasongood testified that something less than 5% of the time and effort of the League was devoted to the activities that the Tax Court found to be “political.” In view of the rule, that this remedial statute must be liberally construed to effect its purpose, and in view of the fact that Seasongood’s evidence was not successfully challenged either by adversary witnesses or destructive analysis, we conclude that the so-called “political activities” of the League were not in relation to all of its other activities substantial, within the meaning of the section. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/48 "2014-08-03T05:54:51Z")
Well done, **Bricker**! _Now_ can we get back to “Christian,” at least insofar as it pertains to reconciling their “Statement of Faith” with their statement of policy preferences? ---
**Author:** ![Superdude](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/superdude/32/13450_2.png) [@Superdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superdude)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/49 "2014-08-03T12:05:16Z")
> [@Crotalus](#): > > Here’s a great quote that I find myself paraphrasing at church on a regular basis. I can’t think of what Christian or family value they are promoting with this. I prefer Stephen T. Colbert: > [@](#): > > “If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit that we just don’t want to do it.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/50 "2014-08-03T13:36:09Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Well done, **Bricker**! > > _Now_ can we get back to “Christian,” at least insofar as it pertains to reconciling their “Statement of Faith” with their statement of policy preferences? Sure. I don’t see an automatic conflict between the two. Even if they believe that the Bible is inerrant and the sole source of authority, they can certainly find Biblical support for their opposition to relaxing immigration. Certainly I did not see anything in their Statement of Faith that required them to advocate for government adoption of Christian principles. They can, as I read it consistently argue that individuals should be bound by the words of the Bible in their personal lives, but that our secular government isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/51 "2014-08-03T17:10:33Z")
Thank Jesus, that Bricker is here to act mildly retarded so that he can win another one through disingenuousness. The point, _silly billy_, isn’t that they are legally a non-profit. The point is that they, like you, are hypocrites. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/52 "2014-08-03T17:23:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Thank Jesus, that Bricker is here to act mildly retarded so that he can win another one through disingenuousness. > > The point, _silly billy_, isn’t that they are legally a non-profit. The point is that they, like you, are hypocrites. I see the hypocrisy from the AFA on both the religious and secular angles. Besides the religious one it is clear that a lie is being made about how the secure the border is regarding this issue (kids give up to the authorities, they are not evading) I would think that eventually the ones that will have to render a judgement, in the legislative or judicial areas will have to tell the ones making this complaint that a lie does not fly in the secular world either. In the moral front, the evidence is pointing that this is a humanitarian crisis, reducing it to a border one is really misleading and inhumane indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/53 "2014-08-03T17:35:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Certainly I did not see anything in their Statement of Faith that required them to advocate for government adoption of Christian principles. They can, as I read it consistently argue that individuals should be bound by the words of the Bible in their personal lives, but that our secular government isn’t. In addition to their strident opposition to SSM, which is explicitly rooted in their interpretation of the Bible, the AFA has also protested Rep. Keith Ellison taking his oath of office on a Koran, and the recitation of a Hindu prayer before Congress. Both incidents were explicitly rejected due to their non-Christian nature. In 2010, the AFA published an editorial arguing that Muslims should not receive 1st amendment religious protections. Also, no discussion of the AFA is complete without reminding people that they’ve been classified as a hate group by the SPLC since 2005. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/54 "2014-08-03T17:46:37Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Also, no discussion of the AFA is complete without reminding people that they’ve been classified as a hate group by the SPLC since 2005. > **[American Family Association](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/american-family-association)** > > The American Family Association (AFA) says it promotes “traditional moral values” in media. A large part of that work involves “combating the homosexual agenda” through various means, including publicizing companies that have pro-gay policies and... > [@](#): > > Founded in 1977 by Methodist minister Donald E. Wildmon as the National Federation for Decency… Whoa, I thought Mel Brooks was only kidding! He knew that some Methodists were up to no good. 😛 [QUOTE=Blazing Saddles] Hedley Lamarr: I want rustlers, cut throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperados, mugs, pugs, thugs, nitwits, halfwits, dimwits, vipers, snipers, con men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bushwhackers, hornswogglers, horse thieves, bull dykes, train robbers, bank robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers and **Methodists**. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/55 "2014-08-03T19:49:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I think I mentioned above, their tax-exempt status is not based on a religious conviction. > > Let’s hold off on “Christian,” for a moment, since they don’t have to be Christian or religious at all to be a 501(c)(3). They must be neither organized or operated for the benefit of private financial interests, and no part of their net earnings may be distributed as profit. Exempt purposes include “religious,” to be sure, but also: charitable, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. Bricker, just because 501(c)(3) status doesn’t hinge on religious conviction doesn’t mean that there isn’t fraud going on here. _In the specific case we’re talking about,_ the AFA makes Christian-sounding noises in order to receive their tax-exempt status, but then reverses course in practice (not to mention trying to influence legislation). It isn’t fraud when any 501(c)(3) organization behaves in an un-Christian manner, but it is when the AFA does it, since that is the basis of their application for their tax-exempt status. Now, what % of their activity can be characterized as inappropriately political would take more scrutiny to resolve. But since their un-Christian behavior makes it clear that they lied on their application for 501(c)(3) status, maybe we don’t have to bother. It comes down to simple fraud. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/56 "2014-08-03T20:40:51Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Bricker, just because 501(c)(3) status doesn’t hinge on religious conviction doesn’t mean that there isn’t fraud going on here. _In the specific case we’re talking about,_ the AFA makes Christian-sounding noises in order to receive their tax-exempt status, but then reverses course in practice (not to mention trying to influence legislation). > > It isn’t fraud when any 501(c)(3) organization behaves in an un-Christian manner, but it is when the AFA does it, since that is the basis of their application for their tax-exempt status. > > Now, what % of their activity can be characterized as inappropriately political would take more scrutiny to resolve. But since their un-Christian behavior makes it clear that they lied on their application for 501(c)(3) status, maybe we don’t have to bother. It comes down to simple fraud. If an Islamic tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization promoted the eating of pork, should they be stripped of tax-exempt status? After all, their behavior would be “un-Islamic.” ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/57 "2014-08-03T20:44:05Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If an Islamic tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization promoted the eating of pork, should they be stripped of tax-exempt status? After all, their behavior would be “un-Islamic.” Would that apply too if they would recommend the eating of [Red Herring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)s? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/58 "2014-08-03T20:44:22Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Bricker, just because 501(c)(3) status doesn’t hinge on religious conviction doesn’t mean that there isn’t fraud going on here. _In the specific case we’re talking about,_ the AFA makes Christian-sounding noises in order to receive their tax-exempt status, but then reverses course in practice (not to mention trying to influence legislation). As I cited above the AFA qualifies as a 501(c)(3) charity. What makes you believe that any “Christian noises” they make are what qualifies them for 501(c)(3)? It isn’t fraud when any 501(c)(3) organization behaves in an un-Christian manner, but it is when the AFA does it, since that is the basis of their application for their tax-exempt status. > [@](#): > > Now, what % of their activity can be characterized as inappropriately political would take more scrutiny to resolve. But since their un-Christian behavior makes it clear that they lied on their application for 501(c)(3) status, maybe we don’t have to bother. It comes down to simple fraud. Cite, please, that their 501(c)(3) status rests on any lie? Specifically, cite that their claim to being Christian is the sole basis of their application for their tax-exempt status. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/59 "2014-08-03T20:46:36Z")
Also, it opens a \*\*huge \*\*can of worms and slippery slope for the \*government \* to decide what constitutes “Christian” views - to be deciding, “This organization’s stance is Christian, this stance is un-Christian.” Do we want the \*\*government \*\*deciding what qualifies as “Christian?” What’s next, stripping a Christian charity of tax-exempt status because they don’t believe in the existence of purgatory? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2014, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578/60 "2014-08-03T20:47:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Would that apply too if they would recommend the eating of [Red Herring](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring)s? That’s not a red herring. It’s a very relevant test of the proposition. **Try2B** says that when the AFA acts contrary to Christian values, it invalidates their 501(c)(3) status, since that is the basis of their application for their tax-exempt status. It’s relevant to ask if that principle would also apply to an Islamic tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization promoted the eating of pork. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-pitting-of-the-good-christians-of-the-american-family-association/694578.md?page=4)